Global warming will devastate world economy

[gerryhatrick]

Global warming will devastate world economy

Thomas Wagner, Associated Press

Published: Monday, October 30, 2006

LONDON -- Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a major British report said Monday.

Introducing the report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would cost the world between five and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product each year.

He called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of the temperature rise.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...520&k=23032

Another nail in the coffin of the denial croud such as those who sent Harper a letter asking for more study.

Will Harper stand up and acknowledge this report?

Will he stand with our ally Great Britain in this fight?

Obviously Global Warming and the fight against it is part of our Federal political discourse at the moment, and thus far Harper has done little to show that he takes the situation seriously.

[cybercoma]

From the article:

the Tories have introduced a new Clear Air Act that sets no short-term targets for cutting greenhouse emissions but aims to cut such pollution by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050.

(British Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who commissioned the Stern report) called for Europe to cut its carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050.

Looks like Harper is already a step ahead of them.

"The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth," said Stern's 700-page report, the first major effort to quantify the economic cost of climate change.

Eventually?

Tell me....

When? I need to be prepared.

[geoffrey]

50 years says this guy.

Funny how you can't make a judgement on climate with 50 years of data, but oh well. Using the last 8000 years (a real measure of climate), we should hardly be concerned.

After all those arguments from gerry saying economists know nothing about science!!! The outrage from gerry that I'd listen to an economist rather than an environmentalist with personal interest in the 'green industry'...

Then he tells us an economist knows best.

--

While your all cutting your CO2 emissions to prevent the Noah like flood in 50 years according to this guy, you'll all be dead from cancer before that.

It's all about priorities... the green industry and all the money they stand to gain from such a report (1% of the worlds GDP is alot of money) will kill you. They should be on trial with the likes of big tobacco.

[gerryhatrick]

50 years says this guy.

Which guy?

[geoffrey]

50 years says this guy.

Which guy?

Your Sir Stern poster boy.

The report said at current trends average global temperatures will rise by 3.6 to 5.4 degrees within the next 50 years or so, and the earth will experience several degrees more of warming if emissions continue to grow.

It said such warming could have effects such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, declining crop yields, drinking water shortages, higher death tolls from malnutrition and heat stress, and widespread outbreaks of malaria and dengue fever. Developing countries often would be the hardest hit.

Reading your material would be step one in defending it. CBC went into further detail outlining the apparent crisis too, too bad you missed it, it had high production value. Scared the rest of the non-believers in the green plan into line.

Like I said, we spend all of our money on fighting a ridicilous concept to make a few people a quick buck and we are all dead of cancer by then anyways. From your beloved CBC came a documentary from Wendy Measley about cancer and carcinogens in our environment.

There's a real issue gerry, take that one up with equal enthusiasm (and green industry support and dollars) and you'd be really saving lives.

[B. Max]

Global warming will devastate world economy

Thomas Wagner, Associated Press

Published: Monday, October 30, 2006

LONDON -- Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a major British report said Monday.

Introducing the report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would cost the world between five and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product each year.

He called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of the temperature rise.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...520&k=23032

Another nail in the coffin of the denial croud such as those who sent Harper a letter asking for more study.

Will Harper stand up and acknowledge this report?

Will he stand with our ally Great Britain in this fight?

Obviously Global Warming and the fight against it is part of our Federal political discourse at the moment, and thus far Harper has done little to show that he takes the situation seriously.

Tell us gerry what kind of scientist is this and what research has he done. This a report based on the false assumption that there is man made global warming. Man made global warming based on the phony computer models.

[Topaz]

Anyone thought how much damage has been done to the earth by the wars we've had, especially, WW2, Nam, Korea and the Middle-East wars now going on!

[scribblet]

There really isn't a concensus on how large of a problem it really is, and if we can do anything at all to stop it. His report gives prescriptions for how to minimise disruption. Stern's central argument is that spending large sums of money now on measures to reduce carbon emissions will bring dividends on a colossal scale. It would be wholly irrational, therefore, not to spend this money. However, he warns that we are too late to prevent any deleterious consequences from climate change.

However, it would also be a massive government boondoggle if we spend huge sums of money now on a problem that may not exist , and if it does, we can't stop it anyhow. There are many articles over the years saying just that, from the fraudulent hockey stick warming profile, to the rigged measurements of the Greenland ice pack.

I am not denying that we have a huge pollution problem or that the earth may be changing, and we certainly have to work towards cleaning up our act in a timely manner, but I'm of the opinion that much of the warming (or cooling towards an ice age) is part of the earth's cycle, something we can't do anything about.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html a good chronology

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Cont...age&pid=106

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

[margrace]

For the 4th time since the first of July, Ontario has suffered collossal lost of hydro power throught huge storms.

I have lived a long life and I have

[cybercoma]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/04/

This interesting article explains what cutting CO2 emissions will do to the CO2 concentrations and theoretically the temperatures. It shows that cutting back emissions to 1991 levels (which still means there will be emissions and therefore an increase in concentrations from that point) will result in an estimated temp change of 1.47C by 2100. Keeping in mind that the longer we wait, the more the concentrations go up we would have to make that 10% reduction immediatly because in years to come it'll be a bigger percentage decrease.

Here's the thing...

Assuming 2008 CO2 emissions levels will be 10% greater than 2002 levels the resulting temperature increase in 2100 at those levels would be 1.76C. So, for billions of dollars and potential damage to our economy we're looking at decreasing the 100 year temperature increase by 0.29C.

The article goes on to say even a 50% reduction in emisssions will only reduce the temperature increase by 0.7C.

Seems a little pointless to be throwing money at results like that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The interesting thing about climate change is that there have been several verifiable occurances in our history. Apparently some folks do not believe in this scientific fact, oh well. In this I guess they are entitled to their opinions. From my perspective there seems to be sufficient evidence to support the assertion that another climatic change has already begun. I cannot fathom why why some people choose to assign blame for this, but they certainly seem to think that one thing or another is responsible for this change. I don't care who is responsible, but I do care if something is happening to the world in which I live.

It would be nice to think that maybe we could create environmentally friendly industries that don't pollute our planet but could still provide viable employment. It would also be nice to think that our governments would be smart enough to act on our behalf before we encounter real problems. Unfortunately I don't see either eventuality on the foreseeable horizon.

For my part I think that perhaps I will be viewed as adding to the problem, because I am switching to coal for heating my home. I need coal because I want to have a greenhouse and to heat that with anything else is cost prohibative. I have enough land to grow outdoor crops as well and plan to buy a cow/calf for dairy products. In spring I will buy an impregnated sow so I can raise some pigs before next fall. I want a few chickens too, so I will be guilty of creating greenhouse gases. On the other hand I will be provideing a large portion of my own agricultural products, I don't know if that makes me green or not but I do think that it will prove to be financially effective in reducing my household expenses.

[cybercoma]

As long as we continue to breed and breathe, we're all increasing CO2 concentrations. Terrorists, the United States and the avian bird flu are really just culling the population to help control the amount of CO2 we're breathing out as a total world population.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As long as we continue to breed and breathe, we're all increasing CO2 concentrations. Terrorists, the United States and the avian bird flu are really just culling the population to help control the amount of CO2 we're breathing out as a total world population.

Yep, pretty much. You I think that business and government are trying to find ways of making money off this one!

[cybercoma]

Yep, pretty much. You I think that business and government are trying to find ways of making money off this one!

Careful now....the environmentalists will tell you that population growth has nothing to do with CO2 concentrations.

I should be clearer. Population growth means more people burning fossil-fuels and poorer nations becoming more industrialized. The relationship between population growth and global warming only means more people will be polluting.

That's what they'll tell you.

Even though it really means more people will be breathing and the polluting part is only one piece of the pie. If we want to eliminate CO2 over-concentrations in the atmosphere and have a real effect on global warming we need to find a way to get people to inhale CO2 and exhale O2.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even if man is responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases that may account for the current global climate changes, I don't think we are able to reverse the effects to mitigate the changes that I believe will occur. With that said I think what really should be done is making an effort to determine what these changes will mean to Canadians and work toward taking what advantage that may be found from them. The advantages may in fact be very minimal and the detrimental impact may be very great, but both need to be investigated.

Global warming may raise sea levels. Global warming may precipitate an iceage. It may do this and it may do that, but what we need is a serious attempt to plan for possible eventualities. We have identified a possible problem and now we need to formulate a solution t that problem. This falls under the category of rocket science, not voo-doo economics.

[gerryhatrick]

It's pretty funny to watch all those unable or unwilling to admit/deal with Global Warming on here posting their opinions on it!

The scientific community (other than a few industry paid unemployed "scientists") is in agreement on Global Warming and it's causes. Why do people think this is a matter of opinion?

[YellowDuck]

Hi all -

First post on this forum.

I wanted to point out that this idea about people "breathing and breeding" as a contributor to global CO2 concentrations is flat wrong. It is not just "environmentalists" who will tell you that - every serious scientist will tell you that.

The CO2 you breath out is derived from one place - the food you ate. All of the carbon in that food originally came from only one place - the atmosphere. This is true whether it was fixed by the plant you ate (in the case of eating a fruit or vegetable or grain), or it was fixed by a plant that was eaten by the chicken or cow you ate. ALL of that carbon was taken out of the atmosphere, recently, so when you breath you are just returning to to the place it came from - no net change for the atmosphere.

Same argument holds for burning wood, or burning biodiesel or ethanol.

The NET change in atmospheric CO2 only comes from consuming fossil fuels, since that carbon did not come out of the atmosphere recently - it has been locked away under the earth for millions of years.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is that we actually DO use a lot of fossil fuels to produce our food (energy to make nitrogen fertilizers, drive trucks and tractors, etc), so in that sense there is a net contribution to atmospheric CO2 from "breathing". But that problem is surmountable, at least in theory, since we could also do all of that using renewable fuel sources if we chose. The bottom line though is that saying "people breathing contributes to global atmospheric CO2" is pretty simplistic and essentially incorrect.

Cheers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is global warming, or climate change, call it what you want but it does exist. The question is what to do about it?

Forget the blame game because that will not solve the problem. Forget trying to solve the problem at all. Just deal with the implications. It doesn't matter what caused the change, we could not have prevented it from happening even it was in fact caused by humans because we did not understand the consequences if/when we embarked on a path that created the problems. Having said that are the effect of this change reversable within a smaller time period than the effects if left unchecked will take place? I think not. We simply don't have the means or the technology to reverse these effects. So why cry over the spilt milk? Lets grow up and deal with the problem to the best of our ability. Reductions and or eliminations of emmissions will only reduce the effects, they will still come to pass in spite of our efforts. So why not take that into account in formulating a plan of ACTION. Yes we need to deal with emmissions and polution, but what we also need to do is figure out how to adapt to our changing world. That is far more important than blaming Fred, Barney or Joe for creating the damned problem. The fact is that we have a freaking problem and beating up Fred, Barney and Joe won't make it go away.

Legislating ourselves to death with political puppets won't solve the problem either. We need to start thinking about what the effects may mean to our society. Will we be faced with a hot desert for a climate or a frozen wasteland? Should we plan on cheap air conditioning or cheap heat? Will there be enough water or too much? There are a hell of a lot of questions that we simply don't have answers to, so we need plans to cover both ends of the spectrum.

The only sure thing here folks is that things will change. Ignore this or deny it and our ability to adapt may be comprimised.

[gerryhatrick]

Hi all -

First post on this forum.

I wanted to point out that this idea about people "breathing and breeding" as a contributor to global CO2 concentrations is flat wrong. It is not just "environmentalists" who will tell you that - every serious scientist will tell you that.

The CO2 you breath out is derived from one place - the food you ate. All of the carbon in that food originally came from only one place - the atmosphere. This is true whether it was fixed by the plant you ate (in the case of eating a fruit or vegetable or grain), or it was fixed by a plant that was eaten by the chicken or cow you ate. ALL of that carbon was taken out of the atmosphere, recently, so when you breath you are just returning to to the place it came from - no net change for the atmosphere.

Same argument holds for burning wood, or burning biodiesel or ethanol.

The NET change in atmospheric CO2 only comes from consuming fossil fuels, since that carbon did not come out of the atmosphere recently - it has been locked away under the earth for millions of years.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is that we actually DO use a lot of fossil fuels to produce our food (energy to make nitrogen fertilizers, drive trucks and tractors, etc), so in that sense there is a net contribution to atmospheric CO2 from "breathing". But that problem is surmountable, at least in theory, since we could also do all of that using renewable fuel sources if we chose. The bottom line though is that saying "people breathing contributes to global atmospheric CO2" is pretty simplistic and essentially incorrect.

Cheers.

Welcome to the forum YDuck.

Some people cannot accept the current reality of human caused Global Warming. They will point to humans breathing, cows farting, ice ages, sun variance, earth tilt, forest fires, ect ect...

I believe some cannot accept it because their minds are not capable of dealing with it, and others are a combination of that and partisanship. It has become a partisan issue for some.....if you're a pro-market Conservative then they think they need to come down against it.

Your post is well put and quite true, but understand that debate with some is fruitless. And in truth, the debate is over. All serious scientists agree, the degree of certainty is beyond anything that would warrent not acting.

Note how this report is so quickly and easily dismissed. Those who dismiss it even act as if they have clue #1 about it and the subject. It is a symptom of what I described.

[geoffrey]

The NET change in atmospheric CO2 only comes from consuming fossil fuels, since that carbon did not come out of the atmosphere recently - it has been locked away under the earth for millions of years.

If you have one dollar, do you spend it on removing the toxic cancer cloud from Toronto that will kill you or the possibility that hundreds of years from now we might have some issues?

That what this is to me. I reject the extreme predictions of global warming (they aren't founded on anything, and we are well within normal ranges)... though I agree completely that releasing CO2 will have an affect (extremely small). Over time, this is an issue and we should deal with it.

But we have so many more pressing environmental issues... cancer is killing everyone, asthma is destroying childrens lives and killing people, obesity is going to kill even more.

And your worried about something that may or may not happen... or could happen in a unending variety of ways... hundreds of years from now?

[YellowDuck]

I actually don't disagree with you geoffrey. I mean, there is no doubt that global atmospheric CO2 is rising - that is easily observed. It is also easy to calculate that fossil fuel use must be contributing significantly to that rise. It starts to get a little sketchier when we try to calculate the exact temperature increase that is likely to result, and, in my opinion, when you get into the game of predicting long term consequences for global climate patterns, you are really sticking your neck out.

I am not supporting the notion that climate models have been "sabatoged" to produce some foregone conclusion. But I am saying that the global climate is extremely complicated, and modelling it accurately is a pretty hard scientific problem. Climatology is NOT an exact science. But on the other hand, it is not a corrupt scienc either, so let's not be too cynical. If you look at good public climatology websites like that of the US NOAA, you won't find any hard iron-clad predictions about what global warming is going to do to the planet. And that is not just because President Bush's appointees have been busy with the red pen. It is because NOAA science is peer reviewed and reputable, and at this point there aren't any hard answers.

That said, the increase in global CO2 is a profound change to the planet's atmosphere. I for one am in favour of at least paying close attention, scientifically, and having some kind of plan in place for moderating that change.

[cybercoma]

I actually don't disagree with you geoffrey. I mean, there is no doubt that global atmospheric CO2 is rising - that is easily observed. It is also easy to calculate that fossil fuel use must be contributing significantly to that rise. It starts to get a little sketchier when we try to calculate the exact temperature increase that is likely to result, and, in my opinion, when you get into the game of predicting long term consequences for global climate patterns, you are really sticking your neck out.

I am not supporting the notion that climate models have been "sabatoged" to produce some foregone conclusion. But I am saying that the global climate is extremely complicated, and modelling it accurately is a pretty hard scientific problem. Climatology is NOT an exact science. But on the other hand, it is not a corrupt scienc either, so let's not be too cynical. If you look at good public climatology websites like that of the US NOAA, you won't find any hard iron-clad predictions about what global warming is going to do to the planet. And that is not just because President Bush's appointees have been busy with the red pen. It is because NOAA science is peer reviewed and reputable, and at this point there aren't any hard answers.

That said, the increase in global CO2 is a profound change to the planet's atmosphere. I for one am in favour of at least paying close attention, scientifically, and having some kind of plan in place for moderating that change.

I was being facetious about breathing and breeding, btw.

This post you made is the most sound post made on the topic thus far.

The only question I have is if "at this point there aren't any hard answers," then how are we to have a "plan in place for moderating that change"? It seems impossible to plan for something when we don't know its magnitude...and we may only have a subtle effect by creating cutbacks (to the tune of a fraction of a degree), since it will be impossible to immediatly cut ALL CO2 emissions. All the money that will be spent going towards a fraction of a degree dent in the increasing temperature could be spent on much better things.

[Charles Anthony]

I believe some cannot accept it because their minds are not capable of dealing with it, and others are a combination of that and partisanship. It has become a partisan issue for some.....if you're a pro-market Conservative then they think they need to come down against it.

Protecting the environment is not a partisan issue as you claim. What does "pro-market" mean???? Your statement is absurd and your own citation proves it:

Blair made his displeasure with U.S. environmental policy clear when he signed an agreement this year with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to develop new technologies to combat the problem. The measure imposed the first emissions cap in the United States on utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for warming the Earth.

original opening post citation

So, for all of the non-partisan-Global-Warming-updates-geniuses, in what partisan camp would you put The Terminator now?

[YellowDuck]

I was being facetious about breathing and breeding, btw.

This post you made is the most sound post made on the topic thus far.

The only question I have is if "at this point there aren't any hard answers," then how are we to have a "plan in place for moderating that change"? It seems impossible to plan for something when we don't know its magnitude...and we may only have a subtle effect by creating cutbacks (to the tune of a fraction of a degree), since it will be impossible to immediatly cut ALL CO2 emissions. All the money that will be spent going towards a fraction of a degree dent in the increasing temperature could be spent on much better things.

Thanks for the compliment. And yeah, I kind of wondered if you were serious about the "breathing" issue. Trust me, there are people out there who would actually buy that.

I don't accept the "monetary tradeoff" line of reasoning. It's really just a red herring to say "let's ignore every problem that we don't understand as well as this other problem over here." What you are really saying with that argument is that you have decided to discount this issue, without yet really understanding it.

Keep in mind that the current US administration has been reducing funding to research in these areas (and indeed, for environmental protection initiatives in general), and has also been monkeying with the consensus research reports before they come out. In my view, there are clearly political agendas getting in the way of the science - perhaps because of pressure from the petroleum industry? So it's not just a matter of choosing where to put your resources based on potential benefits - it's also about politics and money. That really bothers me.

Cutbacks on fossil fuel use are not the only solutions, anyway. What about CO2 reclamation technologies? How about reducing CO2 emissions from the production of refined fossil fuels? The best estimates I have seen also indicate that reforestation has a significant role to play in reducing atmospheric CO2 over the long term.

Yeah, we have limited resources avaialble to pursue all of these things, but redirecting all the money spent on climate change research to cancer research isn't necessarily going to solve that problem either, and I don't think we can really afford to ignore either. I guess my appeal is just to try to get the politics out of it (on both sides - the radical greenies are over the top too) and let the scientists do their jobs. What we don't need is another politically and economically motivated "scientific review" of the subject from some group like the Fraser Institute.

Like it or not, the current scientific consensus is that increasing global CO2 is a profound change, and it is largely man-made. Because of the potential for long term adverse effects, that same community of scientists advocates taking action to address the problem. Exactly what that action should be is a political issue, but as a citizen I don't support the "do nothing on this because we have bigger problems to deal with" position. PM Harper doesn't either, as far as I can tell.

[geoffrey]

I like this Duck character...

That said, the increase in global CO2 is a profound change to the planet's atmosphere. I for one am in favour of at least paying close attention, scientifically, and having some kind of plan in place for moderating that change.

I'll always agree that reducing CO2 is a good thing... as long as we aren't sacrificing our real environmental responsibilities... clean water to drink, clean soil to plant our food and products and air free of carcinogens that are killing us. Elimination of smog so kids don't have to suffer with asthma. After all that's done, then I'm there with CO2, without a doubt.

All the money that will be spent going towards a fraction of a degree dent in the increasing temperature could be spent on much better things.

That's my proposal... other environmental things anyways.

I don't accept the "monetary tradeoff" line of reasoning. It's really just a red herring to say "let's ignore every problem that we don't understand as well as this other problem over here." What you are really saying with that argument is that you have decided to discount this issue, without yet really understanding it.

Let's study it some more. Get together some good panels. Build some better models. In the meantime, cut CO2 emissions with some little incentives (like telling the oilsands to cut or we're raising your resource royalties... that'd work in a jiffy).

The big issue is car use. It's not changing because the government passes a law. That's a cultural shift, one that's not happening soon... and it impossible in a climate like Canada's really. You can say cut the oilsands production all you want, but that gas in the cars in Ontario needs to come from somewhere.

Keep in mind that the current US administration has been reducing funding to research in these areas (and indeed, for environmental protection initiatives in general), and has also been monkeying with the consensus research reports before they come out. In my view, there are clearly political agendas getting in the way of the science - perhaps because of pressure from the petroleum industry? So it's not just a matter of choosing where to put your resources based on potential benefits - it's also about politics and money. That really bothers me.

The US is far ahead of us in emissions reduction. Under the Liberals we surpasses them in growth considerably. We are one of the worst in the world, we could learn from our neighbours to the south.

Cutbacks on fossil fuel use are not the only solutions, anyway. What about CO2 reclamation technologies? How about reducing CO2 emissions from the production of refined fossil fuels? The best estimates I have seen also indicate that reforestation has a significant role to play in reducing atmospheric CO2 over the long term.

Reforestation is a good idea. I like trees. As a backcountry biker and skier, I would love more parkland. Not to mention a well-developed recreational park provides not only CO2 relief but a chance for those fat people to exercise and reduce health care costs. Great benefit to increasing protected parkland.

Yeah, we have limited resources avaialble to pursue all of these things, but redirecting all the money spent on climate change research to cancer research isn't necessarily going to solve that problem either, and I don't think we can really afford to ignore either. I guess my appeal is just to try to get the politics out of it (on both sides - the radical greenies are over the top too) and let the scientists do their jobs. What we don't need is another politically and economically motivated "scientific review" of the subject from some group like the Fraser Institute.

Like it or not, the current scientific consensus is that increasing global CO2 is a profound change, and it is largely man-made. Because of the potential for long term adverse effects, that same community of scientists advocates taking action to address the problem. Exactly what that action should be is a political issue, but as a citizen I don't support the "do nothing on this because we have bigger problems to deal with" position. PM Harper doesn't either, as far as I can tell.

We should act. But it should be measured, and relative to the other environmental threats we face from cancer, smog and soil/water toxicity.